RealGM

What kind of stats would he put up? And where would he rank as a player?

He'd be a quicker, more vertical Ben Wallace defensively with multiple DPOYs and the regular league leader in rebounding assuming he got into a good situation. Scoring stats would depend on what kind of offense you play him in . . . when he played in the low post, he scored efficiently but without a lot of assists; when they moved him to the high post, he scored less, shot a lot worse, but got a lot more assists. Never going to be a big points guy though.

Drag-and-drop or given modern training?

rrravenred wrote:Drag-and-drop or given modern training?

Hmm....thats a good question.

If you have a different answer for each situation maybe just explain both.

Young Russell's numbers this 11-12 season (hypothetically), assuming he plays for the same team (BOS) ...

MPG: 36.0
PPG: 13.0
RPG: 15.0
APG: 2.0
SPG: 1.1
BPG: 2.8
But no ring because BOS can't stay healthy for the season.

39 MPG

13 PPG
16 RPG
4 APG
3 BPG
2 SPG

50% FG
60% FT

spectacular athlete
top 3 pick coming out
many DPOYs
maybe an MVP if lands on a great team but usually loses out to more offensive players
makes just about any team a top 5 defense
awesome leadership, work ethic, durability, intangibles
just lacks the talent when it comes to shooting

overall a top 5 guy, probably #3 after Dwight Howard and LBJ

If he played on a solid defensive team that ran, I could see him averaging 12-16 with a record breaking 6 BPG. His outlets were incredible, so I think he'd average 4-5 assists per game as well.

Having watched some full games of him in the NBA finals...

Probably at least 15 rebounds, 4 blocks and 4 assists, with a couple of steals a game as well. He might score a bit less (closer to 12-13) but on higher efficiency (could be higher than 60%, only scoring off putbacks, alley-oops, and PNRs). He might defend more against PFs than he did in the 60s, as his athleticism would allow him to do that. He would be the DPOY and a top 3 MVP candidate. He would dominate in most advanced stats, particularly the ones involving +/-.

His game translates very well to the current era of basketball - a big who's long, incredibly athletic, and does not focus on scoring, instead doing all of the little things that help his team win. That's what teams expect out of centers nowadays, except Bill does it much better than what they're used to. He's exceptionally smart and an elite decision maker.
His offense is underrated too, he's a great offensive player (not all great offensive players are natural scorers). He moves well without the ball, sets good screens, passes wonderfully, and he's got great touch - think Kevin Garnett without the midrange/fadeaway jumper. He's no Kwame Brown, if you throw him the ball, he'll catch it. He knows how to convert opportunities on the offensive end.

ardee wrote:If he played on a solid defensive team that ran, I could see him averaging 12-16 with a record breaking 6 BPG. His outlets were incredible, so I think he'd average 4-5 assists per game as well.

There is no way he averages 6 bpg today. There are so many less blockable shots compared to when he played. Guys shoot a lot less shots and shoot a lot more 3s. That doesn't even take into account how weakly players tried to finish back then or how many of those blocks would be called for fouls in today's game

His outlets were amazing because transition defense was almost non-existent in his day.

I don't understand why people think he would score more points and get more assists with much fewer possessions.

I could see him being one of, if not the best defenders in the game but mediocre on offense. He didn't have any scoring touch and took ill-advised shots. If he doesn't take those ill-advised shots then he isn't going to put up enough shots to score the 15 points people are thinking. No team is going to give him the 12-14 shots he was getting back then unless he just chucks up bad shots like he did then but then his efficiency would suck like it did back then.

I realize that everyone's efficiency sucked back then, but that also helped him on defense and in rebounding. And there was no reason for him to just take bad shots for the hell of it, just because everyone else did.

Absolutely a great defender, but his offense only even looks decent because defenses were so bad back then. Even still he was very inefficient. That points to bad shot selection and/or bad scoring touch and the video evidence backs that up.

There is no way he is scoring around 15 ppg with this few overall possessions on good efficiency, especially not the 60% someone claimed in this thread.

I think he would be a better defensive Garnett but much worse on offense. One of the best players in the league, but he isn't winning 11 rings today.

why would he be as inefficient as he was in the 60s? given different training, theres no reason to believe hed be a ben wallace or kwame brown type player on offense. hes an amazing athlete who possessed great skill and was a very intelligent player. i agree with the poster who said hed be like KG without the fadeaway jumper. in fact, i agree with most everything he said, it was a very good post.

BoutPractice wrote: but on higher efficiency (could be higher than 60%, only scoring off putbacks, alley-oops, and PNRs). .

LOL. Really??? He never shot higher than 46.7% in his career and all the sudden he is going to skyrocket to 60%??? That 46.7% happened when offensive goal tending was legal so put backs happened at a higher %. I don't see it at all.

Well, for one he would be a PF, not a center due to his size (roughly T-Mac's proportions). As such, he would have far fewer opportunities to man the post when guarding stretch 4's like Dirk. It would be a lot easier to lessen his impact defensively. Dwight would still be the best defender in the NBA due to this. It's impossible to predict stats, but I assume he'd have a Rodman-like career.

dwight arguably isnt a better defender than old KG, yet he would be better than the GOAT defensive player? makes sense.

pro-tip: you dont need to be a center to be a dominant defensive force, nor do you need to man the post.

Sebastian wrote:Well, for one he would be a PF, not a center due to his size (roughly T-Mac's proportions). As such, he would have far fewer opportunities to man the post when guarding stretch 4's like Dirk. It would be a lot easier to lessen his impact defensively. Dwight would still be the best defender in the NBA due to this. It's impossible to predict stats, but I assume he'd have a Rodman-like career.

He's about the same height as guys like Hakeem, Mourning, Howard and taller than Ben Wallace.

9 PPG / 14 RPG / 4 APG / 3 BPG

Greenhat nailed it pretty bang on!

Doormatt wrote:why would he be as inefficient as he was in the 60s? given different training, theres no reason to believe hed be a ben wallace or kwame brown type player on offense. hes an amazing athlete who possessed great skill and was a very intelligent player. i agree with the poster who said hed be like KG without the fadeaway jumper. in fact, i agree with most everything he said, it was a very good post.

I never said he would be as inefficient as he was in the 60s. He would be more efficient than that just because he wouldn't be allowed to take so many bad shots.

But that bump in efficiency isn't going to put him at 60% on that same kind of volume.

There is much more reason to believe he would be a ben wallace type player on offense (up to season 10 ppg on high 40s fg% and crappy free throw shooting, scoring mainly on putbacks and dunks) than a KG type offensive player (up to 24 ppg on 50% shooting, creating his own shot as a #1 option by driving, posting up and shooting that fadeaway while also drawing fouls and being able to hit them at an 80% clip)

He isn't as bad on offense as Wallace, but he is much closer to him than KG. You could be a good team with KG as your #1 option. You would be the worst offense in the league if Russell. He would get his points like Wallace did, not like KG did. He also wouldn't be able to match near the volume at any respectable efficiency. Russell is not on the same planet as KG on offense.

I base the 60% on how easy it is for offensively challenged centers to average that nowadays taking only extremely easy shots. One example would be 07-08 Chandler, who averaged 12 ppg with over 60% despite being less skilled than Russell, showing that in a proper context, such stats can actually happen.

Having watched Russell, I trust his intelligence as a player. In the 60s, he attempted those difficult hooks because that was what was required of him. In the current era, he would know his place.

The Ben Wallace comparison isn't fair. Russell wasn't a good 1 on 1 player, but other than that he was extremely valuable offensively. He had great hands and great coordination. He never looked "awkward" on offense like Ben Wallace or Rodman did. He contributed much more than them on that end of the floor. Passing, setting screens, moving without the ball, he knew exactly what to do and when to do it.

If you watch games of him, you will see that he is all over the court, both offensively and defensively. His undeniable all around dominance combined with quiet efficiency is what reminds me of players like KG and Tim Duncan. I'm not saying he has the same offensive skills as KG, and certainly not his 1 on 1 skills. He's nowhere near that.

hayguise wrote:9 PPG / 14 RPG / 4 APG / 3 BPG

Sounds about right plus extrame package of intangibles.

Joakim Noah